how power, its trappings, levers of the state and, ultimately, development then is centralised much to the detriment of the ethnic minorities who then are forced to depend on the benevolence of the majority. While it stands to reason that the colonial structures were oppressive and tended to be the preserve of a few minorities based on colour, it must be acknowledged that the logic of the liberation struggles, including its underlying ethos envisage what was called a ‘majoritarian rule’, without clearly delineating what it entails. Thus sowing the seeds for centralised systems of governance, with majority ethnic groups at the helm. Even our states had to be formed as successor states based on the ideological frameworks designed by those in the majority – and, in most cases, with the founding leaders of our states being from majority tribes. Also key as a running principle of the nationalist ideology, which informed the argument that, ‘divided we fall, united we stand’, was another clearly violent mantra that said, ‘…for the nation to live the tribe must die.’ The question then is; which tribe had to die? And the answer is simple, ethnic minorities faced the brunt of it. This was a clear statement announcing the atrocious intentions of the ‘would be liberators’, and no one dared to question it. So what we had from the on-set are states without nationalist but tribalists masquerading in the garbs of nationalism, harbouring ambitions of abusing minorities. And as we may all know, the project of state formation is a violent process. And so what we have is a history ethnic violence, what others have referred to as civil wars associated with the independence period. These forms of violence stretch within Southern Africa, right across the continent of Africa. You would recall, the case of